Johnson: The Sark/Brecqhou Dyad THE SARK/BRECQHOU DYAD Jurisdictional Geographies and Contested Histories HENRY JOHNSON University of Otago, New Zealand <[email protected]> Abstract Over the past few decades, the islands of Sark and Brecqhou have featured in much media and legal discourse. Such factors as jurisdictional contestation, tension and criticism have arisen either between the owners of the private island of Brecqhou and the jurisdiction in which it is located, or as a result of other factors that have an association with Brecqhou on the larger island of Sark. As a type of microstate with a contested history and distinct traditional ways of life, the jurisdictional geographies in the Sark/Brecqhou dyad are of particular interest to the field of Island Studies. I use the term ‘Sark/Brecqhou dyad’ as a way of emphasising the distinct physical, political and social binaries that exist between the islands of Sark and Brecqhou. It is argued that key to understanding some of the points of contestation within and between this island dyad is a comprehension of some of the ways jurisdictional geographies and contested histories have been (re)interpreted. This article is an extension of my earlier article on the subject (Johnson 2014), and one that offers clarification, or one interpretation, of several significant points that help in comprehending this particular case of inter- and intra-island dynamics. Keywords: Sark, Brecqhou, politics, power, space Microstate/Micronation Barclay twins ‘seek UDI for Brecqhou’. (Blackhurst, 1996a: online) The comments offered by Dawes (2015) on Johnson (2014) are based on an interpretation of jurisdictional geographies and contested histories. In the following I use the term ‘Sark/Brecqhou dyad’ as a way of emphasising the distinct physical, political and social binaries that exist between the islands of Sark and Brecqhou. The former has the larger land mass and population, and a name that is also used to cover the jurisdiction of both islands, as well as some islets and rocks within Sark’s waters. Brecqhou (Figure 1), however, has been a “private island” since 1929 (passing through different owners), and has a history as part of the jurisdiction Sark that has been contested on various occasions, with the most recent points of contention and dispute emerging after 1993 (Rivett, 1999; 2002). Dawes criticises the examples of micronations that were referred to (Johnson, 2014: 11). He notes that the examples are not “islands with ancient histories and real status, such as Sark and, separately, Brecqhou” (2015: 85). The representative examples of micronations were used within the discussion as a way of emphasising that they should _________________________________________________________ Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures Volume 9 Number 1 2015 - 89- Johnson: The Sark/Brecqhou Dyad not be compared to the islands of Sark or Brecqhou. While the term ‘micronation’ is usually used for the more recently declared territories that are not recognised as nation states, the terms ‘micronation’ and ‘private island’ are sometimes used in a similar way (Tædivm, 2015: online). What I referred to was the fact that “unlike” (emphasis added) some recent conceits of micronations, the jurisdiction of “Sark has a long history of being almost an island nation (or microstate – cf Dommen and Hein, 1985), . with long established political links to the Bailiwick of Guernsey, of which it is a part, and to the British Crown” (Johnson, 2014: 11; cf George, 2009: 50). Furthermore, I commented that the jurisdiction of: Sark is a British Crown Dependency, but could be described as a type of microstate [ie a type of nation] (cf Le Rendu, 1999; 2004), and its degree of political autonomy and traditional practice offers an example of island identity within a sphere of concentric and interconnected political affiliations and power relationships. (Johnson, 2014: 10)1 Figure 1. Brecqhou, July 3rd 2008. (Photo by Chris Northey, used under Creative Commons license, source: www.flickr.com/photos/afc16/2664541899 ) A similar point was made by the editor of The Sark Newspaper2 (also Chief Executive Officer of Sark Estate Management [hereafter SEM], which is a company belonging to the owners of Brecqhou), whose thoughts on the power of Sark’s parliament were published in The Guardian. Having lived on Sark for seven years, the CEO’s commentary notes the importance of: Holding up a mirror to the actions of those who seek to control Sark, in the interests of transparency, openness, accountability and, most of all, in the public interest . Sark is what amounts to a micro state with the power to make primary legislation in all areas of Sark life. (in Morris, 2014b: online) _________________________________________________________ Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures Volume 9 Number 1 2015 - 90- Johnson: The Sark/Brecqhou Dyad What is particularly important in the case of the islands of Sark and Brecqhou is that there is a further (and sometimes contested) relationship between the owners of the latter and jurisdiction of which it is a part (ie Sark). The dichotomy gives the impression that it is between two islands, when in fact it is between one private island and the legal system in which it exists, which has its parliamentary chamber and, since 2008, all members of its parliament based on the island of Sark. The Sark/Brecqhou dyad is therefore a binary of two islands, a jurisdictional binary and a binary of place and power. Moreover, the strained relations between the two has not only been on contested jurisdiction, but there has also been much criticism of the traditional form of Sark’s governance, both pre-democracy (ie before 2008) and post-democracy. Thus: The geopolitical (dis)connection between Sark and Brecqhou is not one of nation-building per se, but, rather, a context where Sark’s political practice has changed and continues to adjust as a result of recent internal and external influences. (Johnson, 2014: 11) It is here that there are very clear asymmetries relating to population size and power between this island dyad (cf Baldacchino, 2006: 853). As Royle notes in connection with the domination and dependency of islands on others, “islanders can be outvoted; island economies can be bought up. Whole islands can be purchased” (2001: 141). Such asymmetries between the islands of Sark and Brecqhou pertain to such factors as population base, fiscal influence and (negative) (inter)dependency. I use the latter notion here to refer to (i) Brecqhou being an island dependency within the jurisdiction of Sark; (ii) Brecqhou’s dependency on its own and imported resources (not usually from the island of Sark); and (iii) the dependence on Sark’s legal system by those who challenge it. The challenge that was made in the late 1990s regarding the jurisdiction of Brecqhou might be related prima facie to the idea of ‘micronation’ (Ryan et al, 2006). While there are certainly many examples of intriguing island micronations around the globe, the process of challenging the government of Sark’s jurisdiction over Brecqhou placed Brecqhou in a situation where its future territorial status would be challenging not only for itself, but also Sark’s government, the Bailiwick of Guernsey (of which the jurisdiction of Sark is a part) and the British Crown. If Brecqhou were not part of the jurisdiction of Sark, then what was it a part of, if anything at all? While recognising that Brecqhou should be under some jurisdiction, the point of Brecqhou’s challenge was to question whether that jurisdiction should be Sark (Walsh, 2005: online). I used the term “quasi-micronationalism” (Johnson, 2014: 9) to refer to the privileges and exemptions that Brecqhou is often given by, or requests from, Chief Pleas (Sark’s parliament). Another term could equally be ‘quasi-microstate’. For the residents of one island (Brecqhou has a population of about 30 – Baker, 2012) to have different rights to the residents of another island (the island of Sark has a population of about 600), and each falling within the jurisdiction of Sark, offers an example where the island geographies of place have helped define the laws of the land(s). Furthermore, the different layers of jurisdictional authority for each of the Channel Islands, and in particular the Bailiwick of Guernsey, could be considered microstates on several levels (Dommen and Hein, 1985; Le Rendu, 1999; 2004). In other words, each of these British Crown dependencies3 exists as ‘quasi-nations’,4 themselves having different levels of governance, but not being nation states in their own right. For example, within the Bailiwick of Guernsey there are various territorial island groupings and divisions: the government of Guernsey _________________________________________________________ Shima: The International Journal of Research into Island Cultures Volume 9 Number 1 2015 - 91- Johnson: The Sark/Brecqhou Dyad administers the islands of Guernsey, Lihou, Herm and Jethou; Alderney and Sark each has its own legislature; Alderney administers Burhou (unpopulated); and Brecqhou is part of the jurisdiction of Sark).5 Not only might the jurisdiction of Sark be seen as a type of microstate of two islands (a type of sub-national jurisdiction) but the emergence of contestation between the islands of Sark and Brecqhou over the past few decades has added a further level of quasi- micronationism to the equation. Furthermore, the term ‘micronation’ was particularly appropriate as a label for Brecqhou at the time when a legal case was made that questioned whether Brecqhou was within the jurisdiction of Sark, which made media news from the mid 1990s. For example, one report noted: “Barclay twins ‘seek UDI6 for Brecqhou’” (Blackhurst, 1996a: online). The context of this article was that the owners of Brecqhou were wishing to reclaim a property purchase tax (treizième)7 paid to the 22nd Seigneur of Sark, Michael Beaumont OBE, although later it was noted that “the action on its own was not a declaration of independence” (Blackhurst, 1996a: online).